down spouts and walkways

[Uncle Bob]

Re: down spouts and walkways

2006 International Plumbing Code. Chapter 11 STORM DRAINAGE.

1101.2 Where required. All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts and courtyards shall drain into a separate storm sewer system, or a combined sewer system, or to an approved place of disposal.

Chapter 2 Definitions.

APPROVED. Acceptable to the code official or other authority having jurisdiction.

[storm drains should desend from the roof to a covered opening (grated cover is acceptable) in the sidewalk that directs storm water from the roof to the parking lot or other approved location; without spilling onto the sidewalk.]

Uncle Bob

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

If the opinion BO determines that the installation will cause a unsafe situation then I believe he could require a change in the plans.brudgers, if you designed a building that was unsafe, even though you met the "minimum" code, do you think you would be liable IF someone were to be injured because of your design? You see it happen all the time.

Would you design a building like this?

I'll just address similar comments here.

Ice buildup is a maintenance issue.

As I'm sure you know, in certain climates ice will even build up where there is no building, and eliminating the roof discharge will not eliminate the potential for ice formation in Kansas.

How I would design a building is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Although I tend to tie rain leaders into the underground where it is practical and desirable, that doesn't make it code.

If there's a fire, and if the walkway adjacent to the parking lot (and immediately adjacent to the burning building), there is an alternate exit discharge through the parking lot or similar surfaces.

The exit discharge argument is a reach...or rather a leap beyond the code minimums into the realm of pet peeves.

My personal opinion is that code officials ought to be cautious against using chapter one for disapproval. It should be a last resort not a catchall for denial.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Re: down spouts and walkways

This is one way it should look;

(click on picture to enlarge; downspout from roof)



(grate and drain to pavement)



(the drain cut into the sidewalk & downspout to drain)



Some use a solid cover on the sidewalk drain.

Uncle Bob

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: down spouts and walkways

UB,

You sure spend a lot of time at Hotels

 

[jar546]

Re: down spouts and walkways

If the opinion BO determines that the installation will cause a unsafe situation then I believe he could require a change in the plans.brudgers, if you designed a building that was unsafe, even though you met the "minimum" code, do you think you would be liable IF someone were to be injured because of your design? You see it happen all the time.

Would you design a building like this?

I'll just address similar comments here.

Ice buildup is a maintenance issue.

As I'm sure you know, in certain climates ice will even build up where there is no building, and eliminating the roof discharge will not eliminate the potential for ice formation in Kansas.

How I would design a building is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Although I tend to tie rain leaders into the underground where it is practical and desirable, that doesn't make it code.

If there's a fire, and if the walkway adjacent to the parking lot (and immediately adjacent to the burning building), there is an alternate exit discharge through the parking lot or similar surfaces.

The exit discharge argument is a reach...or rather a leap beyond the code minimums into the realm of pet peeves.

My personal opinion is that code officials ought to be cautious against using chapter one for disapproval. It should be a last resort not a catchall for denial.

The IPC very clearly covers this subject and the only way that you can discharge to a sidewalk would be if the BCO determined that the sidewalk was "approved". I don't know of anyone who allows that up this way.

Maintenance issue my ass. Get your butt up to the north some time.

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

The IPC very clearly covers this subject and the only way that you can discharge to a sidewalk would be if the BCO determined that the sidewalk was "approved". I don't know of anyone who allows that up this way. Maintenance issue my ass. Get your butt up to the north some time.

If there is an element which is not mandated by the code and has no detrimental effect on occupancy when out of commission then it's not a building code issue.

In other words if you can set up orange cones and yellow tape and still meet egress requirements, then it is a maintenance issue.

Stormwater from the roof ultimately travels to the same location as stormwater from all the other impervious surfaces on the site (eg the concrete walk and parking lot).

This board demonstrates there's no way a person can possibly anticipate all the crazy arbitrary **** a building official can imagine to be non-compliant.

As I've said discharging the gutters at that location may be bad practice (and for exactly the reasons you cite).

But the code is a minimum standard not a guide to good practice, and trying to enforce it as the latter is unprofessional.

Unless the concrete walk is code mandated, how does it not comply with the requirements for a splash block?

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

This is one way it should look;(click on picture to enlarge; downspout from roof)



(grate and drain to pavement)



(the drain cut into the sidewalk & downspout to drain)



Some use a solid cover on the sidewalk drain.

Uncle Bob

I love it.

Now the ice forms in the parking lot where a person:

1. cannot see it when getting out of their car.

2. cannot avoid it when using the parking lot.

It's epic.

But a little to subtle for there I fixed it.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Re: down spouts and walkways

FM,

It's one of the new "extended stays". I've lived here for the last 5 months; while looking for a place to settle. The rent for weekly is $189, but, I got a suite; month to month; for only $499 per month; and I have a full kitchen with regular size fridge, cook top, micro wave, sink, and cabinets; a full bath, fresh towels daily, cable tv and internet. All the comforts of home for a single guy, for now anyway; but, I will be happy when I can get all my household furniture out of the climate controlled storage; and sit in my own back yard in the morning with a cup of tea.

Uncle Bob

 

[texasbo]

Re: down spouts and walkways

As others have said, "approved place of disposal", and the definition of "approved" are all you need. Period. End of story.

Sure, there are many unscrupulous design professionals out there who are more worried about making a buck than they are compliant design.

In the end, those unscrupulous design professionals are exactly why we are here. And in the end, it's the code officials interpretation of approved location that matters. I'd love to see an appeals board rule against the code official in this particular case, with the clear and obvious hazards involved in such a negligent design.

And when the empty threats of lawyers come around, do as I do, and chuckle to yourself, knowing you are well within your authority (Sec 202, 2006 IBC) to make the correct interpretation...

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

As others have said, "approved place of disposal", and the definition of "approved" are all you need. Period. End of story. Sure, there are many unscrupulous design professionals out there with a chip on their shoulder who are more worried about their pet peeves than they are compliant design.

In the end, those unscrupulous design professionals are exactly why we are here. And in the end, it's the code officials interpretation of approved location that matters. I'd love to see an appeals board rule against the code official in this particular case, with the clear and obvious hazards involved in such a negligent design.

And when the empty threats of lawyers come around, do as I do, and chuckle to yourself, knowing you are well within your authority (Sec 202, 2006 IBC) to make the correct interpretation...

Do you get your imaginary code requirements wholesale, or retail at the dollar store?

It's obvious they don't come from the code books.

This has nothing to do with "unscrupulous design professionals."

When stormwater discharge from the roof is directed to the same location as stormwater from the parking lot and other site impervious surfaces discharge, it is invariably headed to an approved location such as a vault or pond.

Since you haven't read section 1101.2, I'll tell you what it says.

It says "All roofs, paved areas, yards, courts, and courtyards shall drain... to an approved place of disposal."

(If you ever actually open a real code book you will also find a comprehensive list of prohibited locations in section 1101.3.)

The parking lot is no more an "approved place of disposal" than the sidewalk.

The code, for better or worse does not differentiate between where a roof must go and where the parking lot goes.

It only requires one stormwater system.

 

[north star]

Re: down spouts and walkways

...and that "approved place of disposal" shall be determined by the code official, "NOT"

the DP!

 

[texasbo]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers started out with this gem:

Do you get your imaginary code requirements wholesale, or retail at the dollar store?

Actually I get my code requirements from code books that I ordered over the internet. You know, the same place where you ordered your architect's license.

Brudgers said:

Irrelevant rant, including: (If you ever actually open a real code book you will also find a comprehensive list of prohibited locations in section 1101.3.)

Wrong as usual. If it were "comprehensive", the word "approved" wouldn't be placed in front Of "place of disposal".

Amidst the venom, Brudgers also said:

The parking lot is no more an "approved place of disposal" than the sidewalk.

Ha! fortunately for the public, that interpretation is MINE to make, and not YOURS.

Thank you for continuing to validate exactly why communities need code professionals to protect them.

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Under your interpretation, you have made the parking lot is an approved disposal area for stormwater from the roof.

That's clearly contrary to the intent of the code.

If you want to prohibit downspouts from discharging onto the walk fine.

Put on your big boy undies and amend your land stormwater regulations instead of holding the CO hostage just to stoke your ego.

By the way, the list in 1103.3 is comprehensive.

It just doesn't say what you think says.

Nor does it say what you want it to say.

In fact it doesn't even say the things you want make up as you go along.

The unfortunate thing is that despite knowing all that, you can't seem to live with enforcing the code as it is written rather than as you wish it to be.

I guess it's too simple.

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

...and that "approved place of disposal" shall be determined by the code official, "NOT"

the DP!

The determination should be based on the code and other land use regulations, not what the code official wishes it said.

If you want to prohibit it, fine.

Put on your big boy undies and go through the democratic processes required to amend the code.

 

[texasbo]

Re: down spouts and walkways

I guess "big boy undies" is the phrase of the day. Here's a word of advice: I'd be careful using it a third time in the same thread; wasn't that catchy the first two times...

Brudgers said:

Under your interpretation, you have made the parking lot is an approved disposal area for stormwater from the roof.

You mean I've approved a "flat area" such as a street or lawn an area for storm water discharge from the roof? Well of course I can't do that!!! Everybody knows I can't do that!!!

Hold on, Brudgers; 1101.2 :... "and where approved, storm water is permitted to discharge onto flat areas such as streets or lawns."

Well looky there, Brudgers, the code says I can approve roof drains to discharge to flat areas. I just happen to think a parking lot is a flat area, how about you? Therefore, I approve those roof drains to discharge to the parking lot, but not a sidewalk, because I don't approve discharge to sidewalks. And guess what? I can do that. And that's a Nieman Marcus interpretation, not a dollar store one.

Brudgers said:

By the way, the list in 1103.3 is comprehensive. It just doesn't say what you think says.

No Brudgers, the code only says what Brudgers thinks it says, right? It's comprehensive in the fact that even I can't approve storm discharge into sanitary. There are other places that it can't discharge to as well. You know where those other places are? Places that I haven't approved, that's where they are, Brudgers.

Now when the International Sewer Code Reference for the Unscrupulous ( I-SCRU) comes out, then Brudgers can make up his own rules and get away with them. Until then, your interpretation doesn't matter, because you aren't the code official.

You'll find I-SCRU at the dollar store, on a shelf right next to your little boy panties.

I'll leave you with one bit of advice that you didn't take last time I offered it to you: how about you ditch the boorish, insolent behavior, and participate in this forum like an adult? You might find people will start to actually take you seriously, and care what you have to say.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Brudgers,

You are an Architect; and we need and welcome, good Architects on this forum; especially if they have a working knowledge of the Codes; which, you don't have, given your constant assumtions that a lawyer is necessary for a Building Official to carry out his/her responsibilities; and your assumption that you and not the Building Official has the authority and responsibility to interpret and administer the Codes.

This forum is comprised of some of the most knowledgeable Master Code Professionals, Building Officials, Engineers, Plans Examiners, Inspectors, Fire Marshals and Fire Inspectors and yes, Architects in this country.

You have an obvious problem with code compliance and authority. Do you use childish quips like; "Put on your big boy undies" when meeting with Code Officials in Auburn?

If you have helpful information to contribute; it will be greatly appreciated; but, please leave your disrespectful middle school remarks in you hometown playground.

Uncle Bob

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

If the stormwater for the roof is disposed of once it hits the pavement, then it need not be held onsite in a vault or pond.

And the "hazard" has been increased.

Brilliant.

 

[LGreene]

Re: down spouts and walkways

In January of 2006, a friend of mine came out of a restaurant in central NY and slipped on ice caused by this exact situation. When she fell, she hit her head on the pavement which caused her to have a seizure. It was later determined that she cracked her neck in several places and she had to have surgery to stabilize the vertebrae with plates and pins. Her insurance company won't pay her medical bills because her injury was the result of negligence by the restaurant. The restaurant is part of a LARGE national chain and is looking for any excuse to avoid paying for her medical care.

When she drove by the same restaurant a couple of weeks ago, they had orange cones marking the hazardous ice patch. She wasn't the first person who fell, and I'm sure she wasn't the last either.

I hope you can find a code-based reason to require the downspout discharge to be changed on the building you're looking at...then tell me what it was so I can tell her legal team.

- Lori

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Ben Rudgers,You are an Architect; and we need and welcome, good Architects on this forum; especially if they have a working knowledge of the Codes; which, you don't have, given your constant assumtions that a lawyer is necessary for a Building Official to carry out his/her responsibilities; and your assumption that you and not the Building Official has the authority and responsibility to interpret and administer the Codes.

This forum is comprised of some of the most knowledgeable Master Code Professionals, Building Officials, Engineers, Plans Examiners, Inspectors, Fire Marshals and Fire Inspectors and yes, Architects in this country.

You have an obvious problem with code compliance and authority. Do you use childish quips like; "Put on your big boy undies" when meeting with Code Officials in Auburn?

If you have helpful information to contribute; it will be greatly appreciated; but, please leave your disrespectful middle school remarks in you hometown playground.

Uncle Bob

As I said initially, it may not be good design but it may meet minimum code requirements.

I was called "unscrupulous" for pointing out that a code official ought to interpret the code literally and if they don't like what the code says, they should amend it rather than making up their own interpretation.

I have no problem with code compliance...unlike a code official my house, savings, and other assets are personally on the line for anything I seal...there's no sovereign immunity and no corporate protection.

I do take issue with code officials who construct reasons and torture logic for the sake of denying permits and holding CO's hostage over items that are not explicitly in the code.

The IPC requires stormwater to be disposed of.

It allows the code official the discretion to permit mere discharge to constitute disposal for non-residential structures and requires the code official to accept mere discharge as constituting disposal for one and two family dwellings.

It prohibits using sanitary sewers as a means of disposal.

Without additional regulations or amendments, that's it.

The IPC is permissive when it comes to stormwater because stormwater is typically handled by other codes and regulations...as it should be -- Civil engineers don't look to the IPC primarily, they look to the land development regulations.

In my opinion, Stormwater regulations are the proper place for whatever requirements are justified by local or site specific conditions.

From a design and construction standpoint, gutters and leaders can easily fall into the margins.

They are often unaddressed or vaguely addressed in the design documents because of common methods of obtaining professional services for commercial projects (e.g. separate Owner contracts with architect and civil engineer).

Secondly, the work is performed by a separate trade from plumbing. Often one that arrives on site a long long time after the sitework is complete...they may even be the last trade mobilized.

Finally the termination of rain leaders falls into the netherworld of "5' from the building."

If it gets to CO and the leaders are a draining onto the concrete and the Code Official has a problem with it, then it might be the design professional's fault.

But only if there is something explicit in the code that the Code Official can point to.

If there isn't, then even if you buy into "because I said so," you should have said so during plan review or at least during underground inspection.

Holding the CO hostage by torturing the code rather than undertaking the hard work of amending it, is and will remain, in my opinion, grossly unprofessional.

I advocate using a lawyer when it is necessary to get a code official to interpret what the code says rather than making up requirements. That's the nature of our great free country. Only a code official who doesn't respect our democratic freedoms would take issue with such an approach. A code official isn't a king who can rule by fiat.

Unlike a code official you won't see me going on and on about authority.

Instead I have responsibility for meeting the code.

It comes with the pencil.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: down spouts and walkways

All I can really add to what Texasbo and UB said was

AMEN

 

[texasbo]

Re: down spouts and walkways

As I said initially, it may not be good design but it may meet minimum code requirements.

It may. If the *Code Official* accepts discharge onto sidewalk as an approved location.

I was called "unscrupulous" for pointing out that a code official ought to interpret the code literally and if they don't like what the code says, they should amend it rather than making up their own interpretation.

Wrong. I referred to "unscrupulous design professionals" because I knew it would get under your skin, which it did. I referred to "unscrupulous design professionals" because of quotes including, but not limited to, the following:

Brudgers: The code allows construction which requires ongoing maintenance...even when it upsets a code official.

Brudgers:This board demonstrates there's no way a person can possibly anticipate all the crazy arbitrary **** a building official can imagine to be non-compliant.

Brudgers: Epic

Brudgers: Brilliant

In other words, I brought myself down to your level, by using petulant, juvenile comments instead of having a debate like an adult.

Brudgers:

I do take issue with code officials who construct reasons and torture logic for the sake of denying permits and holding CO's hostage over items that are not explicitly in the code.

I think most of us do. The only difference is that you fail to accept the fact that other people have other opinions about what constitutes "constructed reasons" and "tortured logic" that matter every bit as much, if not more than, yours.

Brudgers:

The IPC is permissive when it comes to stormwater because stormwater is typically handled by other codes and regulations...as it should be -- Civil engineers don't look to the IPC primarily, they look to the land development regulations.In my opinion, Stormwater regulations are the proper place for whatever requirements are justified by local or site specific conditions.

Don't move the goal posts, Brudgers. This discussion is about code.

Brudgers:

From a design and construction standpoint, gutters and leaders can easily fall into the margins.They are often unaddressed or vaguely addressed in the design documents because of common methods of obtaining professional services for commercial projects (e.g. separate Owner contracts with man with pencil who draw and civil engineer).

Secondly, the work is performed by a separate trade from plumbing. Often one that arrives on site a long long time after the sitework is complete...they may even be the last trade mobilized.

Finally the termination of rain leaders falls into the netherworld of "5' from the building."

You're obfuscating. None of the above has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

Brudgers:

If it gets to CO and the leaders are a draining onto the concrete and the Code Official has a problem with it, then it might be the design professional's fault.But only if there is something explicit in the code that the Code Official can point to.

Done that; you didn't accept it.

Brudgers:

If there isn't, then even if you buy into "because I said so," you should have said so during plan review or at least during underground inspection.

Nobody once has said "because I said so". And I completely agree with you about plan review/underground inspection, 100%.

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Nobody once has said "because I said so". And I completely agree with you about plan review/underground inspection, 100%.

Helping the OP find reasons for holding up a CO is not walking it.

 

[brudgers]

Re: down spouts and walkways

In other words, I brought myself down to your level, by using petulant, juvenile comments instead of having a debate like an adult.

You have a natural talent for it.

 

[Mac]

Re: down spouts and walkways

Here's how I deal with it (from the local code):

140-7. Snow, ice and other obstructions.

A. The owners of buildings or structures adjacent to public streets and sidewalks shall prevent the falling of snow, ice or water from such buildings upon village streets or sidewalks.

Instances where the gutter discharge is not onto a public sidewalk, the stormwater system serving a parking area is actually ideal for also handling building runoff. Project engineers can design for the additional load. What's the problem?

What jurisdiction denied Budgie's design or otherwise torqued him? off?